On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> wrote: > Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Sorry about my last comment on MIME4J-66. I did not realize that it is >>>> about Base64Encoder, not Base64OutputStream.. >>>> >>>> But is Base64Encoder really necessary? I mean >>>> CodecUtil.encodeBase64(InputStream, OutputStream) could also be >>>> implemented as: >>>> Base64OutputStream b64Out = new Base64OutputStream(out); >>>> copy(in, b64Out); >>>> b64Out.close(); >>>> >>>> Why maintain two versions? >>> copy uses more memory and is slower >> >> I have written another performance test for this. The current code has >> a throughput of about 6 mb/sec on my machine. The change to >> Base64OutputStream I proposed boosts it up to 110 mb/sec.. > > WOW! what do you mean by "current code" ? The Base64Encoder or the > previous OutputStream?
The Base64Encoder that is currently used by CodecUtil.encodeBase64. The previous Base64OutputStream had about 50 mb/sec. > AFAIK CodecUtil.encodeBase64 is "published" but *not* used by mime4j, right? Exactly. Markus --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
